Talk:Nova Science Publishers

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Academic Journals

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Looking at all these heated discussions in the empirical perspective of Sir Karl Popper

Being interested in the field of Bibliometry I came across this interesting article which was published in the German language in the journal bibliotheksdienst published by de Gruyther in Berlin and which was expended for the SSRN, managed by Elsevier. empirical bibliometry based on facts and not defamation would suggest that according to the combined three criteria: global library presence, global citations and global classroom use; nova science publishers in New York is placed somewhere in the middle of the global publishers and that there is no reason for authors to refrain from entering into contracts with them. such a type of empirical bibliometric analysis is needed to assess publisher quality, and such a type of analysis might be expanded by using the new database “overton” which analyzes the impact of authors and publishers on the publications of global think tanks. so more objectivity, please in future! Frete unicolore (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The study: Tausch, Arno, Beyond 'Channel Registers' Ways and Aberrations of Ranking International Academic Book Publishers (September 18, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4222481 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4222481 Bibliographer social science (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overton: https://www.overton.io/

Bibliographer social science (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition, the Spanish science council CSIC Frete unicolore (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)runs a fairly regular empirical survey of all the scientists in Spain and investigates the popularity of global publishers with the entire Spanish scientific community, so at least one important scientific community in the world has the solid data about the popularity of publishers with the scientific community. needless to add that nova science publishers performs in a satisfactory way, and this result makes all the talk about vanity publisher lists irrelevantFrete unicolore (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so thousands of Spanish scientists ranked nova science publishers as 43 among the 73 International publishers included in the analysis, and nova science is even ahead of several other important competitors like Stanford University press. So all this is based on solid scientific methodology, and not on the defamation of publishers (and authors who publish with Nova) by anonymous persons on the Internet, and these are the facts about which the article should be rewritten: Here is the link to the study:

https://spi.csic.es/indicadores/prestigio-editorial/2022-clasificacion-general

The Spanish language website also contains important information about the methodology used, etc. Que sea esto el fin de un debate inutil!Frete unicolore (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Frete unicolore (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frete unicolore (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quickly undone facts and the „logic“ of defaming publishers

User KoA reverted my edits

1) the article says again „librarians“ but these are just two librarians, more than a decade ago

2) one of these sources, ms philips, worked at an academic institution, but is not affiliated with an academic library anymore

3) Nova, according to the OCLC First Search, now achieves a good Libcitation performance - see [[Rankings of academic Frete unicolore (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)Publishers]] and Howard D. White. More than 7% of their books published in the last decade - 2443 books - are now present at more than 500 libraries. Their performance is even better than that of Routledge over the last 10 years. Global universities, high up in global rankings, especially in the global South, are among them. I rather trust their judgements.[reply]

4) the article makes an uncommented reference to the heavily contested Beall list, while Wkipedia in the article about the list refers to a long story of the list Frete unicolore (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI ? Bon courage (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Beall uses The present Wikipedia article as a source for his arguments against nova

Please carefully read the article written by Jeffrey Beall, it uses the present Wikipedia article as a source! Frete unicolore (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really using Wikipedia as a source as such, but commenting on the Wikipedia article: "The Wikipedia article about the publisher gives additional information about it, but the article has been somewhat sanitized by the publisher's supporters". Cordless Larry (talk) 10:57, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nova placed at least more than 1.2 million copies of books to high-quality libraries in the last 10 years

any person having an access to OCLC first search can look at the following figures. Nova placed more than 32,000 book items to international libraries over the last 10 years and 2444 - as of today - have reached the stacks or the electronic archives of more than 500 libraries around the globe each, so this involves a buying or subscription decision by global librarians for at LEAST more than 1.2 million books over the last 10 years (2444 x 500 = ~ 1.2 million). compare this please with the figures for the very respected publisher Routledge, which over the same period placed more than 800,000 books around the globe but only 3936 reached the stacks or the electronic archives of more than 500 libraries. So Routledge placed in the high quality category at least around 2 million books over the last 10 years. crude as this calculation might seem at first sight, It only shows that global librarians have falsified the claim that nova science is a vanity Publisher. even the library of the university of Colorado, where Jeffrey Beall played a role as a librarian is - to use a good American expression - awash with books written by nova science publishers authors. so what this admittedly crude calculation which shows only the lower bounds of supposed but unknown real sales figures implies to the whole debate? Jeffrey Beall’s arguments are not compatible with the facts; hundreds and hundreds of librarians around the world are not wasting taxpayers money buying books from an American publisher, and they and also services like Ebsco host Scopus, etc., which frequently distribute books by nova science are carefully using scarce resources to buy high-quality products from a good American publisher; and there must be an end to its defamation on the pages of Wikipedia Frete unicolore (talk) 22:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to be exact, the university of Colorado library system as of today 25 December 2024 has 3409 nova science books in its stacks or in its electronic archives. Frete unicolore (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our role here isn't to decide whether Jeffrey Beall is correct or not. Wikipedia articles simply reflect what reliable, published sources report about a topic. See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beall‘s list is increasingly questioned in high impact factor journals; here by contrast people regard it like „ex cathedra“ declarations … please read https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133318302490 Frete unicolore (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/7/2/35 Frete unicolore (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0099133319302496

it is somewhat incredible that wikipedia editors do not question the source; since it is no longer active, was contested so heavily, and makes so sweeping statements about a publishing company & and logically also its thousands of authors from around the world. serious comparative quantitative bibliometric work, like that of professor alesia zuccala from copenhaguen university came to quite positive conclusions about the quality of the publisher. the debate is being led in a destructive and passionate way, which is unacceptable for a neutral wikipedia article. this is not neutrality, its publisher bashing. Frete unicolore (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your Talk page for a question about WP:COIs. Bon courage (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]